http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lv5jqTh8LI

This is a good one. I would agree. 996 tt .... Super car

 

My personal definition is any car that puts a smile on your face when you even think of driving it. It's not about the money or power. It's about the drive. And hell, to me I consider a mini a supercar simply because it's fun as hell to drive.

 

One thing I will agree on for a supercar is top end. To me if a supercar doesn't hit or come within inches of 200mph then it can't be a supercar!

 

For me it starts with a car that can do 0-60 in under 4. I'm never really going to try and do that because I value my clutch to much, but it's a very good benchmark in terms of performance as it really shows the HP/weight ratio and how the car puts the power to the ground.

I'd qualify a 996 X50 in the supercar ranks. I've driven an F360 and it's slow, and an F430 was about equal. Hence why I'm still driving my car for less money. There's very little that is faster unless you go for a lot more dough. The 997 TT with PDK is a lot faster 0-60, but come on, what is faster 0-60. That car consistently is measured under 3 with no problem. Anything under 3 is a supercar unless you're an idiot.

 

It seems that in earlier years, the term "Supercar" referred to cars that could top 200mph, or come very close to that number.

The term has been changing over time to include cars that don't have quite that level of performance, but do have the price tag to limit their purchase to a select few.

I agree that F430, DB9, Porsche 911 variants(excluding the new GT2 RS) and those similar don't really qualify as "supercars" per se, although they are certainly "exotic".

I think that the performance of cars like the Viper, GTR, 997TT/996TT, ZR1, 458, E55's, M6, etc., can be described as being in "supercar" territory, so that is where the line becomes blurred and many people could consider these to be true supercars in their own right.

Some of the higher end Ferraris certainly qualify, as would the Veyron, SLR, and of course Koenigsegg, McLaren, CGT, Pagani, as others have mentioned.

These cars also fall into the "exotic" category based on cost, low production numbers and rare sightings in most areas.

Scott, you mentioned "100% street car", which to me has always meant pump gas(not $10/gallon race gas available at few locations).

I have always felt that if you have to add anything extra to a vehicles fuel beyond common, easily available pump fuel, in order to achieve a vehicles best performance, it diminishes the ability to be called a true street setup.

I do believe that the R1K, TTG's, etc., when tuned on street gas could certainly crush most other cars out there, so at those levels I would agree, they are "100% street cars", but this could all be discussed in another thread.

 

Agree that supercar designation has evolved through the years. I believe the bar has been raised significantly within the last ten years.

I agree the above cars qualify, in my opinion, as supercars. I would add the 959. But why do these cars qualify?

1. They are the top car (or only car) of their respective manufacturer.
2. They are made in very small numbers (does not depreciate much).
3. They cost 25+ times the avg vehicle.
4. They contain high end (if not state-of-the-art) technology.
5. Their performance is at the very pinacle of vehicle performance as they come from the factory (ie stock).

By those rough criteria the 996TT/997TTs are not supercars. Neither are the cars on the rediculous MT cover!!

That does not mean that from the factory or through thoughtful modification that 996/997TT could not meet one or more of the above criteria ie supercar performance. But its still not a supercar...

 

I'd still consider that a good benchmark. 200+ mph max speed plus sub 4 sec 0-60.

Price enters the equation, but for something like a 911TT, does that make it "supercar-like" then because it's too cheap? What about a Z06? Is that too "cheap" and not "exclusive" enough?

 

That's a great question about the Z06.
Granted, it's performance is certainly spectacular considering it's cost, where most "supercars" with similar performance have been significantly more expensive than a Z06.

Surely the most passionate vette lover would label it as such.

I just really have a hard time putting it in that category, and I'm a former vette owner.

Someone mentioned it earlier that cars like the Z06 and Shelby Mustang are factory modded versions of a more basic model, which tends to take it out of the "supercar" category.

I agree.

The 997/996 TT models I would say are more like "exotic" sports cars, based on cost alone.
I think any car that costs over $100k when new could be considered "exotic".
Likewise with the ZR1.

The problem is that there is a lot of gray area in this type of discussion.

 

I define a supercar as any super hot models willing to stand by it and takes pics with.

 

Excellent thread. I agree with VAGscum, if it was considered a supercar at the time then it is a supercar. those is all opinions anyway.

Tiff Needell called the 996tt a supercar, and he has been in more supercars than anyone in here. His opinion means more than than most. Jeremy from topgear who hates porsche called the 996tt a supercar. Called the F430 a supercar as well. How much do I value his opinion, not much, but if he calls a car he dislikes a supercar, then I think that there is no favoritism there. Any Porsche Turbo has been a supercar from the day it was first made in the 70's. For it's given time it nearly always decimated it's competition and it continues to do so today. If the 996tt is a supercar in it's time, then the GTR is one today.

can a supercar be 4 doors? why not. If it has blazing performance for it's time then why not. Todays Panamera Turbo and the Cadi CTSV along with the E63 and the M5/6 are supercars.

The 2001 supra turbo at 320 bhp and 3500 lbs and snow plow handling vs Porsche Carrera with 316bhp have nearly identical straight line performance stock and the carrera had much better handling. The carrera beat it at hockenheim short by 7 seconds. The Carrera in 2001-2002 was no supercar and the same year Supra could not have been either. Of course with money the supra could kill just about anything called a supercar in a straight line anyway. But that does not qualify

I disagree that price plays into it. Price and quantity built in limited numbers is an Exotic not necessarily a supercar or it could be both. In my opinion Supercars are about performance not so much price or rarity. I think people confuse exotic with supercar far to often. A perfect example would be the ZO6. How can anyone deny it's supercar performance makes it a supercar. It's production numbers are high. One years production equals nearly all years of 996tt sales in the US. Why would production numbers disqualify it?

 

The latter model of Supra is a japanese version of a muscle car. You can build any car with blazing straight line capability, but I think the car has to have the whole package(handling, performance capability/specs and fit/finish). Sure you could make the Supra handle decently, but in stock form it is still not anymore than a very modifiable engine in a chassis that needs a ton of help. I respect them alot for what they are, but they are no more supercar than a fox body mustang.

 

IMO, a super car is one that has either set new benchmarks with regard to performance figures or has reached the same level as current super cars. for example, the GTR has set a new benchmark at the nurburgring as well as matched the quickest cars in terms of 0 - 60 and 1/4 mile times. the term exotic, has more to do with being a pantydropper - cars that you just dont see normally and would defintely impress and draw attention when seen on the road. the money factor is just a natural influence when talking about cars that are either supercars or exotics.

 

Acura NSX? supercar? exotic? great sports car? or maybe just an exotic sports car?

with 3150 lbs and only 286 bhp it certainly didn't have blistering acceleration. Handling was great. Build quality was second to none.

 

Exotic sportscar.

 

In order for a car to hit these categories - exotic and supercar - there needs to be a certain exclusivity to it, in addition to price of admission. There have been cars that have been difficult to obtain - example the Mini GP - yet I don't know that anyone would call that a supercar. So, a car that is exclusive, yet lacks performance doesn't qualify.

Certainly it has to be more than just performance. If you were looking at straight line performance, then a Subaru WRX would qualify, yet I doubt that anyone is looking to get one so that they can claim ownership of a supercar. In this case, performance isn't enough, since there is NO exclusivity.

In my mind, there are three things that allow a car to qualify as a SuperCar. One is the drool factor. If you see the car, and you can't help but stare at it as it recedes into the distance, you have hit the drool factor. The other qualification is difficult to obtain when new. Any car becomes less expensive over time. But the ability to buy one when new sets a standard. And last is performance. To a large extent, this helps a car meet the drool factor. You yearn to drive it, to be seen in it, to own it.

I won't consider the standard 911 as a supercar. Yet a Turbo, the 959, nearly any Ferrari, Lambo and others attain that status. The car's initial price certainly puts it into the category of unobtainium for the normal car buyer. And performance at the time it was new puts it in an exclusive class of cars.

Certainly the existence of cars like the Veyron set a new standard. But if a car needed to meet that standard to be a supercar, we now have a very exclusive fraternity that only the oil sheiks can afford. I would hope that any definition of supercar would allow it to become at least a possibility for the normal person. The exclusivity keeps "everyone" from owning one.

larry